Join The Debate!

Speaking of reaching into your own

pocket, drop by my blog and take a look at Toys for Tots. It's all good.

Time for Atlas to Shrug

Professor Williams is dead on the mark. Worst of all the vast majority of Americans will disagree with him. All I can say is that our nation has reached or is very near the time for Atlas to Shrug

Fantasy time

Wouldn't it be great if we could get at least 5 justices that felt the same way?

HOW TRUE IT IS

Walter Williams has hit the nail on the head again. If Government would heed to his teaching this Nation could become great again. As it stands it progressively flounders.

The beauty here...

The beauty here is that Dr. Williams takes economic topics and renders them in terms accessible to the average human being without years of studying economics. I've considered him my long-distance mentor for years, ever since I listened to him on radio once.

We Love You Walter!

I can't get enough of your logic,truth, and lighthearted humor Walter. Thanks! Let's go fishing anytime. I'll buy the bait and beer. I own a resort, the rest I've got already..JP

Great Legislator Of The Universe:

Christianity & Liberalism are Mutually Exclusive.

Christianity specifies INDIVIDUAL souls facing God on Judgment Day.

Liberalism eschews the individual and concentrates on the "greater good."

Liberals, in order to justify their constant thievery, must resort to the most spectacular and amazing contortions in logic, else they would be recognized by all as mere criminals.

GWB may claim to be a Christian, but he is either the liberal that he is and not a Christian, or he is lying to himself and his god.

Great Article, Dr. Williams

I am saddened that I didn't have professors like you when I was in college. If I had, maybe I would have stayed in the department of economics.

I think it is very sad that Dr. Williams is so right about the point that a Jefferson, Madison or Paine wouldn't be able to be elected President of the United States in this day and age. I can already see where the opposition would go "Mr. Paine is going to cut social security for old folks, get rid of the reduced meal program in schools, and force more homeless back on the streets. Mr. Paine is out of touch with the needs of everyday Americans."

"I'm Hillary Clinton, and I paid for this commercial to show I will fight for you, America."

Why We Love Government

I've often wondered why more do not equate our despised, unfair tax system with downright SLAVERY? WE,WHO WORK THE HARDEST, LONGEST FOR OUR OWN BENEFIT, THEN HAVE THE FREAKING MOST CONSFISCATED FROM OUR LABOR AND INVESTMENTS, TO REWARD THE LAZY BUMS ARE SLAVES PURE AND SIMPLE!

abb

Dick Gephardt would accuse you of being one of lifes lottery winners. Just dumb luck you are born where you are born. Hard work and determination have nothing to do with it.

Part of my work is in estate planning. Most people I have worked with did not inherit what they have. They worked hard and saved. They create jobs for others and are taxed at the highest rates all their life yet called selfish. But it gets better. when they die, the government deems it OK to reach into their grave and grab another half. Instead of wasting time on jealousy of these people, I choose to learn from them.

Great Article

Truthful logic expressed in words anyone can understand.

Goshawk:

You're right, there is no sentiment of wealth distribution among conservatives. It's just a pity that there aren't many conservatives in elected seats.

John Galt

I have to disagree that politics and religion are seperate. Our political system is based on God's laws, a lot of what we espouse as common law goes back to Jewish property laws. Capitalism in the strict sense of investing money in a business and getting a return on that investment is not Bible-based but individual property rights, individual responsibility and self-reliance certainly are. Welfare as we know it today is completely antithetical to any biblical principles. Aid to Dependent Children with its imposition of single-parenthood encourages what is Biblically immoral. Rather than try to delineate between religion and politics, I would argue strongly that modern liberalism is absolutely anti-Christian and I would agree with BlueBastard that liberalism and Christianity are mutually exclusive. As to GWB, Compassionate Conservatism is neither. I do believe he is a man of faith and his foriegn policy is robust and correct, no matter how poorly executed. His domestic politics, however, is decidedly non conservative and, I believe, somewhat at odds with his faith.

Just to add to

my previous post. That is why Liberals Love Big Government! It is this self-serving government that the Liberals use to force their Socialist ideology on the people.

open question

What would be Williams' thoughts on the Fair Tax system, thereby abolishing much of the establishment known as the IRS? If anything, it shrinks part of the government, which, as we all know, is a good thing. Any thoughts? My feeling is that the citizens of our Great Republic seem to deserve the government they have. Maybe the blood of both patriots and owners of Main Stream Media need to be spilled from time to time in order to knock some sense into the idiots among us. . .

Reply to Professor Williams

Ref: http://www.census.gov/popest/national/files/NST_EST2005_ALLDATA.csv

"Reaching into another's pockets to help his fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation, (WW)."

Some say we've spent $500 billion, [$500,000,000,000], in Iraq.

If that were spent right here in America for our own people, it would pay the $5000 closing cost on a home for 100 million Americans, or 1 of 3 of the 300 million of us.

That would pay the $10,000 downpayment on a home for 50 million Americans, or 1 of 6 of United States Citizens.

That would pay a $50,000 downpayment on a home for 10 million American citizens. That's enough to pay for a $50,000 downpayment for every man, woman and child in the states of Alabama, (4,447,100 people), and Arizona, (5,130,632 people), combined.

That would buy a $250,000 home for 2,000,000 Americans, or pay for a home for every man woman and child in states of South Dakota, (754,844 people), Wyoming, (493,782 people), and Vermont, (608,827 people), combined.

We hear all the time that we are doing wonderful things in Iraq rebuilding it.

How can that be?

I thought Republicans didn't believe in "nation building," and excoriated Clinton for doing so.

So now we are being told that money is being robbed from our pockets to rebuild not Appalachia, or poor sections in South Dakota, or Native American communities in Montana, but to rebuild Iraq; people we know nothing about, and who never attacked us.

How can that be?

Clinton asked for a $16 billion stimulus package to help the inner cities, and the conservatives went ballistic; and said not "NO, but _ell NO, we can't afford it!!!"

So we couldn't afford a measly $16 billion for our own people but we can afford $500 billion for people we don't know.

I agree with Professor Williams, but if we must do it, I'd rather do it for Americans first.

I'd rather help an invalid retired couple in the bowls of dirt poor Apalachia buy a $250,000 home, and prescription drugs, or home owners insurance, in their latter days of life, than line the guilded pockets of Haliburton and corrupt Iraqi officials.

What we need

is an overhaul of the appropriation process. As long as a parade of supplicants are granted access to the treasury in return for favors monetary and otherwise, the system of slavery described by Dr. Williams will continue. I've thoght of nuking DC, but that probably wouldn't be enough. Straightening out SCOTUS would be a prerequisite for any meaninful change to occur.

Black Knight

Your comments have nothing to do with Dr. Williams column.

Did you press the wrong key?

Black Knight

Protecting the people of the US is one of the few things we do that is explicitly provided for in the Constitution. I don't see free hand-outs anywhere in there. And, all the social programs and their funding won't matter if we're all dead. That's the difference.

christianity & conservatism (libertarian

The founders believed that a libertarian, small government society could only prosper if Christianity were there to thrive and provide a moral compass for the nation. Even Thomas Jefferson, oft-criticized as an atheist, translated the Bible for the Indian tribes, because he realized that Christianity was vital to national unity and democratic/libertarian progress.

Where Judeo-Christian religion is in decline the state is frequently looked upon to provide moral guidance (Europe), and we can easily see that they are doing a bang-up job of it.

Black Knight

Maybe you didn't read Dr. Williams' article very carefully. National Defense, even imprudently undertaken and incompetently executed, is one of the few appropriate powers of the federal government. Building houses for people, paying their medical bills, etc., etc. ad nauseum, are not. Using the proceeds of armed robbery to aid the poor does not justify the armed robbery. Such actions do not reflect Christian Charity, either. Coerced "charity" is not really charity at all.

Blake, if you enjoy biography, I can heartily recommend "John Adams" and "John Marshall" for insight into early efforts to flesh out and implement the new Constitution. I agree with you that Thomas Jefferson is a good example of "Do as I say -- not as I do." He left us great quotations, but some very questionable examples. John Marshall helped to control him in many areas.

Reply to SHNKSN

"SHNKNSN writes: Wednesday, November, 29, 2006 1:30 PM
Black Knight
Your comments have nothing to do with Dr. Williams column.

Did you press the wrong key?(SHNKSN)"
***

My comments have exactly to do with Dr. Williams comments.

black knight

The general welfare clause should be interpretted as applying to everyone, and we can all argue/agree that the war in Iraq and free houses do not benefit everyone.

So government spending should be limited to only those few things we all agree are beneficial to everyone.

Dr. Williams said it very well!

Our forefathers wouldn't know our country today.
In fact, I think they would be sickened at how we have allowed the Government to turn into this Bloviating Postulating Pork-Spending Blob of Crap that sucks money out of our pockets to redistribute it to people who don't deserve or appreciate it anyway. Yeah, My Dad and Mom are on Social Security and I am paying for them but they paid in their fair share for all of their working years. What kills me is these illegal aliens that get paid cash under the table and then cry to claim welfare, social security, free education, free medical care, and food stamps, sucking our welfare system dry.
Government in itself, like Slick Willie, has no conscience, and spends our money without any forethought.
It is up to Americans to say, "We have had it. We are cutting you off until we get a lower fair tax, and quit taxing every other thing we buy." It is like it was under England when we started this country. We are taxed to death, and when did the President, Supreme Court, Congress or the Senate do exactly as we wanted in the last twelve years? NEVER!!!
Taxation without Representation!
We must get this PIG of a Government on a CRASH DIET!!!!!
I don't want to hear any Moonbats saying "The Dems will do any better," because we already know that they won't!

Black Knight

(almost) Right words, wrong sentiment.

I would rather give American taxpayers their money back.

Reply To DavidM

"DavidM writes:

...Sending taxpayer funds to an oil-rich country is not (DM)."
***

I agree.

Reply to Black Knight

I see you didn't read my post very carefully either. I'm not talking about where I would rather that the loot from the robbery be spent -- I'm saying that the robbery is wrong in the first place, and should not happen. Let the taxpayers keep their own money and use it to buy houses, or medicine, or crackerjacks, as they choose. That's not the government's business. Taxing for war, even a stupid war, IS the government's business.

And GENERAL WELFARE means GENERAL, like roads, courts, police, stable money, etc., NOT individual people or groups, like farmers, "the poor", "the homeless", "seniors", children, etc. Government should not do for people anything that the individuals can and should do for themselves. Such government actions are not only immoral, they are highly inefficient, and ALL OF US would be better off without them.

general welfare

Confiscatory taxation does not promote my welfare.

It is likely that by "promote the general welfare" Madison and the other word-smiths of the Constitution did not mean for the government to take a proactive approach.

The preamble states the purposes and intentions of the men who convened in Philadelphia in 1787. That purpose was to form a better system of government than that created by the Articles of Confederation. The goals of establishing the new government then were to arrange for a common defense, establish more harmonious and judicious interstate relations, and to "promote the general welfare" of the people of the several states. If anything, the existence of the old Confederation period government did not promote the general welfare, as interstate disputes, civil rebellions and hyperinflation owing to state-issued currency were plaguing the entire Union. The Constitution is a consolidation of powers and a sacrificing of sovereignty by the states to a national government that is better equipped to handle matters of foreign policy and internal, interstate dispute resolution. This redistribution of power is the promotion of general welfare alluded to in the preamble. When we divorce the history from the document we risk losing the context and intent of the Constitution.

Once again however, a liberal is taking one misconstrued fragment of flowery rhetoric from the preamble to a document establishing the framework and interpreting it as the guiding principle of the government. Try reading the enumerated and explicit powers under Article I and then take a good look at Amendment X, which very clearly states those powers not granted to the Congress are reserved to the people and the States.

A case for real reform

Mr. Williams underestimates the untapped, libertarian mainstream of America. Thomas Jefferson could be elected today, if he managed to hijack the big-government Republican party like Ronald Reagan did. Reagan and Newt proved that the people want small government reform and more freedom, but people will have to get used to government reform before we can make reform the natural state of politics.

If a real small-government, pro-freedom reformist ever tried to run, he would be elected, and if his agenda was blocked, those blocking it would be voted out as well. The Republicans squandered their shot, but mainstream America still yearns for freedom. The key to significant, sustained government reform is managing it. We have to start with a big idea that provides instant benefits to all Americans. But reformers can't stop with one reform; they have to continue the reforms like an avalanche.

The FairTax is perfect as the first reform. It would ignite the economy overnight because U.S. products would become competitive on the world market and at home. IRS workers, tax attorneys, and tax accountants would be freed up to perform wealth generation instead of services. Companies and jobs would return to America and create a period of economic growth we haven't seen in generations.

Arresting the employers of illegals would also yield near instantaneous benefits as illegal aliens packed up and went home. Those jobs would open up for Americans, the income would stay in America, and if done in concert with lowering the minimum wage, more teens and unskilled workers could get jobs. Helping teens and unskilled workers get a foot in the economic door would benefit the country almost immediately as well with a boost to the economy and a drop in crime. Some illegals would turn to crime, but we would arrest, convict, and deport them.

It's too bad that legalizing and controlling drugs would meet so much resistance at first, because the benefits of that would be nearly immediate as well. Letting drug users out of prison would make the economy would soar as these workers reentered the market and prison costs went down. Without their war on drug income, the Mexican cartels would be unable to control our border, the Taliban would be forced to throw rocks at NATO troops, and U.S. crime rates would plummet overnight as funding for drug gangs including MS-13 dried up. Drug addicts would get help instead of prison, the cost of the war on drugs would disappear, and the U.S. would have new cash crops.

Balancing the budget with across the board budget cuts would boost the U.S. economy as well. The debt would no longer put pressure on interest rates. We also would be freed to strategically deal with China since we would no long be dependent on China to buy our debt to keep the American government running.

Repealing the McCain/Feingold abomination would be a breeze, and could be done nearly immediately. Removing bureaucratic obstacles to the free market could begin one obstacle at a time.

After experiencing all the benefits from these reforms, Americans would be ready to abolish the Department of Education so our kids would be freed to get a good education, abolish the entitlements even though young workers would have to eat the cost of paying for older Americans - that price will eventually have to be paid thanks to our political ancestors, and completely remove government from the health care business.

Americans would demand complete overhaul of federal interference in the free market. Americans would be ready to abolish the DEA and ATF as they would have no reason to exist. (Why does the ATF, a prohibition era agency, still exist anyway? Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are legal.) RICO would be repealed.

The key to reforming government is managing it. Tiny reforms that are hard to notice won't transform the outlook of the public. We need to start with a big reform with big benefits, like the FairTax to move the entire nation to a position where reform is the only politically viable option, and we debate what reforms to implement first, and how much to shrink government with each reform. For this we need a modern Thomas Jefferson who is willing to start the reforms and transform the political landscape so that reform becomes the norm.

http://freedomistheanswer.blogspot.com/

Black Knight, Homer, Leroy

I want to keep this civil and not try to sound superior, because there are areas I am lacking in knowledge. However, I must side with Homer and Leroy on this. I have a law degree and the founding fathers in no way meant, "promote the general welfare" in the ways liberals have tried to twist it. Leroy was very accurate with his post. The founding fathers would never have envisioned how people and politicians have tried to abuse this innocuous phrase. And once again, protecting the people of the US, though you may disagree with the current conflict in Iraq, is explicitly provided for in the constitution. You don't have to turn it sideways or upside down to find it. I will give you credit though. At least you find something to back your argument unlike the non-existent "penumbras" and "emanations" discovered to take abortion out of the perview of the states.

One last thing. You are advocating Socialism. Always sounds nice. Has never and will never work. Just dealing with facts. Socialism has brought nothing but misery to those countries advocating it.

Reply To Leroy

"Leroy writes: Wednesday, November, 29, 2006 4:16 PM
Reply to Black Knight
I see you didn't read my post very carefully either. I'm not talking about where I would rather that the loot from the robbery be spent -- I'm saying that the robbery is wrong in the first place, and should not happen. Let the taxpayers keep their own money and use it to buy houses, or medicine, or crackerjacks, as they choose. That's not the government's business. Taxing for war, even a stupid war, IS the government's business.

And GENERAL WELFARE means GENERAL, like roads, courts, police, stable money, etc., NOT individual people or groups, like farmers, "the poor", "the homeless", "seniors", children, etc. Government should not do for people anything that the individuals can and should do for themselves. Such government actions are not only immoral, they are highly inefficient, and ALL OF US would be better off without them (L)."
***

Be real. The robbery has already taken place. The $500 billion has already been spent.

I've got news for you.

The next $500 billion is getting ready to be spent.

I can't stop that and neither can you. I take that back. Maybe you can stop that.

If you can, come back and let the rest of us know.

If you believe that you get to cherry pick the Constitution inorder to have it fit into your own ideology, that is to choose and accept the part that says "provide for the common defense," which you like; and then turn around and reject the part that says, "promote the general welfare," which you don't like; you should know that a cherry-picked thesis does not win very many arguments.
***

I know exactly what general welfare means.
***

First your side says welfare is not there, and then when I point it out, your side says it doesn't mean that.

Reply To Jander

jander writes: Wednesday, November, 29, 2006 4:39 PM
Hey Black Knight
Did you read the article by Dr Williams at all? He is not advocating spending money on nation building projects. You are building a straw-man argument to push your socialist ideology.

Let me see if I can break it down for you:

Taxing Peter to pay for Paul's prescription medicine is robbery.

The General Welfare Clause of the Constitution is probably the 2nd most mis-understood part of the Constitution(the 1st being the Seperation of Church and State Clause - which doesn't actually exist, but the liberals seem to think that it does!). General Welfare includes roads and bridges. It doesn't include turning the federal government into a giant wealth re-distribution center or a nanny state! It also doesn't include disaster recovery, which is a state issue not federal. Even when the disaster happens in a state full of incompetent Democrats - Louisiana (J)."
***

Hey Jander,

I've been reading and listening to Dr. William's columns, radio and TV broadcasts for over 40 years.

I know exactly what he means.

Dr.Williams believe's that able-bodied taxpayers who have worked hard, played by the rules, should not be overly taxed to pay abled-bodied freeloaders who have never worked, have no ambition, are a drain on the economy, make babies, who are absent father, jailbirds.

And news bulletin, I agree with him.

But where I disagree with him is the sleight of hand. He has to get you to believe that those are the only kind of people with their hands out; and it gets you angry. That's understandable.

While you and are arguing about this, $500 billion has already been stolen, not to take care of the freeloaders described above, but to take care of the rathole that is Iraq, no-bid contractors and Iraqi corrupt officials.

I would rather use those funds on helping the American people first, the old, the infirmed, the disabled, Military families who lost sons and daughters in a regrettable war, GIs who have come back from the Iraq War without limbs and crippled, infants who need health insurance, hard working Americans in industry who have fallen ill through no fault of their own cannot work any more, coal miners with black lung disease, and all able-bodied people who have worked all of their lives, who have never accepted welfare, but now find they have to stop and take care of an ailing parent; as I described elswhere.
***

We are not going to settle on a definition of general welfare. That's a wash.

I know those who believe in states rights and separation of powers believe that Katrina is a state issue. I hope they feel the same way when the San Andreas fault splits California down the middle; 34 million people reduced to 17 million.

I just have a difference of opinion from that kind of thinking.

Reply to Black Knight

You said "If you believe that you get to cherry pick the Constitution inorder to have it fit into your own ideology, that is to choose and accept the part that says "provide for the common defense," which you like; and then turn around and reject the part that says, "promote the general welfare," which you don't like; you should know that a cherry-picked thesis does not win very many arguments."
***

This is not cherrypicking -- it is "distinguishing between things that differ", and the ability to make that distinction is at the heart of rational debate. Dr. Williams article concerns socialism vs. The American Constitution. The Iraq war is something different -- perhaps a topic for another discussion.

oh yeah we love our government

has anyone else seen the report of the president and the leaders of mexico and canada all wanting to combine the three countries together into one country and get rid of borders, jeeze what the h*ll is going on? did we get invaded from space,the invasion of the body snatchers is the president a victim of an alien take over from another world ,where do they get off with this,no congressional involvment and none by the people ,these guys just do what they want and the h*llwith all of us,i seen this on lou dobbs,and i voted for bush,iam fed up with the whole bunch in washington,and now harry ried says its good that illeagal aliens march in the streets for amnesty,as they are planning another big march,so look for the dems and repub. to sell the country out for votes and cheap labor.

Re: Gunner

quote: "has anyone else seen the report of the president and the leaders of mexico and canada all wanting to combine the three countries together into one country and get rid of borders, jeeze what the h*ll is going on?"

Oh really? And just where did you see this report? Sounds suspiciously like what I heard during the 1990s that Bill Clinton was going to do before he left office. Of course some of the black helicopter types were saying that NAFTA was just the first step in just such an act.

Relax. There is no "report" that has any authenticity. We are not going to combine the three countries. The UN is not secretly waiting to take over the country either.

I have heard for years, however, that should the Quebec issue ever result in the disintegration of Canada, that some of the western provinces would possibly petition to join the United States.

Black knight

"I prefer to spend the American treasury on helping the American people first, the old, the infirmed, the disabled, Military families who lost sons and daughters in a regrettable war, GIs who have come back from the Iraq War without limbs and crippled, infants who need health insurance, hard working Americans in industry who have fallen ill through no fault of their own cannot work any more, coal miners with black lung disease, and all able-bodied people who have worked all of their lives, who have never accepted welfare, but now find they have to stop and take care of an ailing parent.

If you prefer to do otherwise, that's your business."

_________________________

That's sweet. You might want to consider Canada or Western Europe then. Sounds like exactly what you're looking for... In fact, LOTS of countries that believe in socialism. This country however is not that, wasn't meant to be that, and is fairly unique in history as far as it's philosophical underpinnings are concerned. Why are you in such a hurry to kill the last unicorn? And what is the proper response of us unicorn-huggers to the likes of you?

As Always

Mr. Williams hits home with undeniable truths, and an understanding of the Federalist Papers possessed by no one else. The "Black Knight" can only argue from the heart, and when confronted, provides no coherant arguement on which to stand. The founders, though flawed as are all men, produced the greatest documents of governance ever written. When men began to forget the price of tyranny, and the cost of freedom ( FDR's New Deal, legalized murder of the unborn, and a flat out pr war against God are just a few examples of evidence ), our complacent voting bit our asses. We are the ONLY civilized nation to never overthrow our gov't. Bloodshed is inevitable due to the "America haters" within our own borders, and those of us who still believe in "states rights" as put forth by the Constitution, and the multitude of thoughtful points written here today. ( black knight not withstanding )

The four directives that the Federal

government was charged with were:
1. To provide for the Common Defense
2. To provide a national banking system
3. To provide for a fair and standard legal system
4. To provide for a national postal service.

How far we have wandered.

Re: Black Knight and Fletch

I just got back on line and found the response to my last post. Fletch is, of course, right about the Preamble not being authoritative with respect to the powers of the federal government. I was not referring to the Preamble, but to Paragraph one of Section eight of Article one of the body of the Constitution itself. This is the General Welfare clause that is being so widely abused. Much of the Common Defense clause is fleshed out in other paragraphs, but the General Welfare clause is at the mercy of the interpretation of Paragraph Eighteen. John Marshall was a great help here, but unfortunately, he is no longer with us. John Roberts seems like a worthy successor. I hope he is.

Cookie and Acceptreality:

I am enjoying your contributions. As I mentioned above, there actually is a General Welfare clause in the body of the Constitution, and its implementation has caused some fireworks from the very start. The establishment of a National Bank was one of the early ones. I heartily agree that it is an appropriate application of the General Welfare clause, but opinion at the time was far from unanimous.

Dr. Williams and the MBA types

That he and his kind create are precisely what is wrong with the USA today.

I told my law clerk the other day that the difference between an MBA and a lawyer is that MBA's major in greed and lawyers major in greed control.

While Williams doesn't want somebody stealing his money, he fails to ask the next logical question. Who is going to stop the stealing?

Unfortunately, the government, that is who. And unfortunately, the government is not doing a very good job of it. Which is why 1% of Americans now own over half the country -- stolen from the rest of us, legally of course. And it is only getting worse because of Dr. Williams and his kind who seem to think they have a right to steal every dime they can get away with. They call it profit. I call it pure greed.

And now the 1% now pretty much own the government.

Jefferson was right. We need a revolution about every generation to kill off those who find ways to legally steal nearly everything from the rest of us. But Williams doesn't understand his head would be the first to roll.

Williams needs to take a refresher course on the French Revolution.

an attorney crying thief? BWAHAHAHA!!!

you're joking right?

you do realize the economy isn't a zero sum game? you also realize there's a 38% avg. shift in membership in that top 1%? you also realize there is far greater mobility the lower on ladder you go? you also realize the vast overwhelming majority of 'new' money made today (and everyday) was made legally? and that there were additional beneficiaries beyond the direct producer? in fact, it's fair to ask whether you've had an even introductory level survey of macroeconomics - have you?

still, uncannily, your conclusion is correct - a revolution is needed. and for similar reasons - to thin the parasite and vulture classes. starting with the lawyers if the rumor is true...

no worries. you're no attorney. paralegal/receptionist in some swampy backwater maybe...definitely not an attorney.

Reply To Fletch

"Fletch writes: Wednesday, November, 29, 2006 7:10 PM
Please...
"Flecth,

Then just cut out the Preamble."

It's not necessary. I does what it was designed to do - demonstrate the purpose of the document that follows. Article I delineates the only powers available to government. Another forgotten part of the document discusses how those powers, enumerated there and nowhere else, should be treated: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution [again, these exist in only one place], nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Tossing out the Preamble becasue it does not express the powers of government makes as much sense as tossing out much of the rest of the document for the same reason - even though those other sections have a perfectly legitimate purpose as well.

The simple fact is that the Preamble is not an operable part of the contract that is the Constitution in either intent or law. Whether or not you like (or even choose to believe) that is entirely irrelevant.

Your stance is completely illogical. But then, you argue that the disparity between black and white household incomes should be eliminated without suggesting any way to address the huge disparity that remains after the much smaller amount possibly due to white racism, so this is hardly a first for you.

***

That's exactly my point.

If it doesn't fit your side's interpretation, then you just get rid of it. Facts be hanged.

If it's in the preamble, it doesn't count, because it just "demonstrate(s) the purpose of the document that follows (F).
***

General Welfare is enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 :

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

But that's not enumerated enough, even though it has a number by it; facts be hanged. Get rid of it.
***

Article 1 Section 8, Clause 18 actually strengthens all 17 clauses that come before it, including Clause 1: [The Congress shall have the power, I added for continuity]

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Therefore, even if it were not enumerated, that would not bar Congress from providing for the general welfare.
***
In addition:

The people retain rights not enumerated in the Constitution as you and others have said under Article IX:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
***

Also, the states and again the people have rights under Article X:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
****

We can then conclude the following:

(1). The people breathe life into the Constitution.

(2). The Constitution enumerates certain rights.

(3). If the people do not delegate a right to the government through the Constitution, then the people (IX and X), or the states (X) retain those rights.
***

We know that general welfare is enumerated in Article 1-Section 8-Clause 1, and strengthened in Article 1-Section 8-Clause 18.

Your side says the preamble is not operable, and enumerated Clauses 1 and 18 are not enumerated, or are not enumerated enough.

I say the preamble is operable, and that Clauses 1 and 18 are enumerated.

We should just leave it at that.
***

With regards to my "stance being illogical," that's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

There is no need to guess or misstate what I argue with regards to household income disparities.

I argue this and only this: 387 years is long enough for your side, the side that claims to be in charge and know so much about everything, to figure out how to close the gap.

With respect to what I would do:

I certainly would not be fighting in a contemtable war,wasting tax payer money, killing or wounding 24,000 of our troops, against people who've never done anything to us.

I'm no rocket scientist, but I do know enough to stay away from insanity when I see it.

Reply To Mercury

Mercury writes:

"You might want to consider Canada or Western Europe then. Sounds like exactly what you're looking for (M)."
***

If you want to go to Canada or Western Europe, have at it. That's your business.
***

I'll decide my destination.

General Welfare

If you rob Peter to pay Paul, You can count on Pauls support. anon

Liberalism is communism, one drink at a time.
P.J. O'Rourke

slabo

I'm certain that you will be happy when you emigrate to one of those paradises, then, right?
I think Singapore sounds like a nice fit.

Fletch

You wrote in your inestimable response to Slabo: "Uneducated liberals such as yourself hardly even present a challenge."

This is, of course, true in an intellectual forum in which logic and rationality are the only criteria. However, the real challenge is to our country and the world presented by these pseudo-intellectual Leftists, who vote their ilk into power. If all Americans were truly educated in the fields of economics, civics and science, the Democrat Party would become extinct overnight. Unfortunately, intellectual laziness and dishonesty, combined with greed, is part of the human condition, resulting in the tendency of an allegedly free populace to vote itself more socialism and less freedom.

Reply To Fletch

"Fletch writes: Thursday, November, 30, 2006

"Apparently wouldn't know a fact if it crawled up and bit you (F)."

That's your opinion, there is no need to devolve into personal attacks and the politics of personal destruction.
***

"You have two options: you may continue to denigrate the facts of others because they don't "fit your side's interpretation" or you can read ANY Constitutional law text or ask a professor at ANY law school and discover that (as with essentially everything else you've provided on these boards) you haven't the slightest damn clue what you are talking about (F)."

I have as many options as I so choose. Profane bluster does not win arguments and you are not the arbiter of whose facts are acceptable.
***

If you want to continue to believe that the enumerated clauses begin with the second clause, Article 1 Section 8, Clause 2, then you are welcome to it.

If that's what strict constructionists are teaching, and it works for you, that's your business.

I'll continue to believe the way the world counts, that the enumerated clauses begin with the Number 1, Article 1 Section 8, Clause 1.

I'll also continue to believe that it is perfectly Constitutionally OK for the government to continue to provide a number of programs, such as Social Security, to assist its people, expressly or implied, subject to Supreme Court interpretation.

No sane government could survive reading, interpreting and acting only on the express words in any Constitution.

If that were the case there would be no NASA, nor Airforce. It is self-evident, strictly speaking, they are not in the Constitution.

Yeah, provide for the common defense and science are in the Constitution. That's exactly my point, just as those phrase can be expanded to include NASA and the Airforce, the people and their congressionally elected presentatives, subject to Supreme Court review, over a period of years have expanded the welfare clause.

If you want to argue about whether or not they have gone too far, then that is a debate worth arguing.

If however, you want to continue to argue, that the number 1 is not enumerated, then that is counter productive.

Finally, if you want to continue to argue that it is better to dump $500 billion of hard earned taxpayer money into the rathole of Iraq:


[... but I would argue that the money is actually better spent THERE than "helping our own people". (F). The quotation marks go after the period.]

killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, men women and little kids, and killing or wounding 24,000 American GIs, than helping the American people, then that is a complete waste of time.

And on that, you can best your last money, we can agree.

A question to DavidGMills actually 2

Please tell me what property did you own that some evil rich guy stole from you and please detail for me how exactly they stole it??? Did he put a gun to your head and force you to deed your acreage over to him? 2nd Why such disdain for MBAs, I think they wasted their time personally because 9 of 10 MBA's go work for someone else for a few more dollars and hour than their bachelor of business counterparts when they should be owning their own business but now I'm getting off topic...

Fletch ~

You're the goods. Excellent answers, but unfortunately wasted on much of your audience. I however have copied them into my notebook and will begin deconstructing for reading material. Knew the depression era history, but my 18th century is not nearly as complete. Bravo sir! And thank you for taking all the time.

State's Powers

Black Knight writes:

"Did you know that every state in the Union has a first time home buyer program already?"

Perfectly acceptable under the Tenth Amendment.

But, not acceptable as a federal program.

ckirmser

Nice catch on the 10th.

Reply To Homer

"homer writes: Thursday, November, 30, 2006 2:11 PM
Black Knight
Unfortunately I fear that you are destined to a life of disappointment - a bitter cup to be sure. As long as your expectation of justice comes from the actions of man, you will find yourself frustrated. And as long as your agenda is more important to you than independent reality, you can not succeed. Not in anything. Not in the art of persuasion. Not in work. Not in love. Not in life. Nothing. Nada. Nyet. Someday I hope you succeed in removing all white men from your life. I fear it is the only hope for regaining your manhood. Only by having the delusion that THEY are the source of your problems destroyed can you have a hope for moving on to something better. When that day comes, I strongly urge you not to seek yet another oppressor, tempting though it will be - but to finally come to grips with what you should know today, and should have known all along.

I am not rich. I am not white. Those two facts hinder nothing in my life. Not my contentment, not my joy, not my knowledge, not my faith, not my outcomes, nor my education - nor my ability to learn - and certainly not my love. They require no fix or equalizer - from you, from my neighbor, from the government - from anybody but God really. You have willingly ingested intellectual poison and if you ever want to be healthy, you must be rid of it. I wish you the absolute best(H)."
***

It's a real pity that you equate the art of intellectual combat in the market place of competing ideas, somehow equates to a not so successful life.

Keep on talking in utter darkness, and keep me out of your grand delusions.

Reply To Fletch

"Fletch writes: Thursday, November, 30, 2006 12:25 PM

Nice try, BK (not really)(F)

"[Keep your condensension , I don't need it, BK]."

“That's your opinion,(BK)," [that you have a problem with facts, (F)], "there is no need to devolve into personal attacks and the politics of personal destruction,(BK).”

No. Given the abundant factual inaccuracies and logical fallacies that have made up the bulk of your offerings to date, there is no other assessment that is consistent with the available data(F).

"[There is nothing new here, BK]."

“I have as many options as I so choose. Profane bluster does not win arguments and you are not the arbiter of whose facts are acceptable,(BK).”

This is called a lie. It is a popular lie among liberals (who all-too-frequently have convinced themselves of its veracity) and many who adhere to this belief refer to themselves as postmodernists (F).

"[More bluster. There is nothing new here BK]."

Facts are those things that are verifiable and concrete. That every authority on Constitutional law agrees that the Preamble is not an operable part of the Constitution is a FACT. That the writings of the Founders expressly state that the Preamble does not grant any powers to government is a FACT. That the word “preamble” means “an INTRODUCTION to a formal document” rather than an operable part of the document itself is a FACT. That there are only two options (either to accept these facts or to continue to ignore them) is a FACT. This is not merely a reading as endorsed by strict-constructionists, this is a UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED assessment of the applicability of the Preamble. As a matter of history, precedent, law and simple English, the phrase “promote the General Welfare” is not an enumerated power. That is ALSO a FACT. Deal with it.

"[There is nothing new here, BK]."

Only when you say, “I'll also continue to believe that it is perfectly Constitutionally OK for the government to continue to provide a number of programs, such as Social Security, to assist its people, expressly or implied, subject to Supreme Court interpretation” does the issue of strict or loose constructionism come up. But then you shoot yourself in the foot as do most liberals when attempting to denigrate the strict constructionist view.(F)

"[Diatribe. There is nothing new here, BK]."

As with so many of your stances, the argument that a strict constructionist view would cause there to be no Air Force is completely wrong demonstrating both a failure to grasp simple English and a misunderstanding of history. The air force is an army that operates in the air. As a matter of history, aircraft have been used by the United States Army since before the Civil War (balloons) and the US Army was one of the first customers of the Wright Brothers. The United States Air Force began as the Army Air Corp and remained such until after WWII.

"[There is nothing new here, BK]."

“No sane government could survive reading, interpreting and acting only on the express words in any Constitution, (BK).”

THAT is merely an opinion and that it is a ludicrous one is also an opinion shared by innumerable scholars and thinkers who have considered the subject(F).

"[There is nothing new here, BK]."

“Your side has had 387 years, (BK).”

Yet another example of intellectual bankruptcy. I am part of no “side” and I’ve been on this planet for 44 years in a country that has been in existence for 230 years under Constitutional government for 217 years and no currently operating viewpoint (“side”) has been in existence for more than 141 years in this debate and arguably for much less time (F).

"[TIMES UP!!!, BK]."

My “side” did not CREATE the gap. If anything, YOUR “side” did. That part of the gap is due to injustice is deplorable, but the FACT remains that the gap as it exists today is overwhelmingly due to the individual decisions made by individuals within the black population – not the racism of whites – and the only way for any other “side” to intervene must, by definition, remove some of the decision making power of those individuals which, in my view, would be no less unjust. *I* have never oppressed anyone. I have, in fact, been advocating policy changes that, history dictates, would help the very people whose condition you are bemoaning while you have argued for greater government intervention – a policy that has ultimately made matters worse (F)."

"[There is nothing new here, BK]."
***

"Finally, if you want to continue to argue that it is better to dump $500 billion of hard earned taxpayer money into the rathole of Iraq:(BK)"

[... but I would argue that the money is actually better spent THERE than "helping our own people". (F)

"killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, men women and little kids, and killing or wounding 24,000 American GIs, than helping the American people, then that is a complete waste of time, (BK)."

"I don't believe in wasting time so there is nothing else we need to talk about, (BK)."

Black Knight

The majority of killing in Iraq since Wars end(April 2003) has not been done by Americans soldiers, but Iraqis.

And you blame us for this?

For an enemy who does not wear uniform and uses civilians for cover, how do you know how many 'innocent' Iraqis we have killed?

Do you believe the military targets civillians? If so our conversation is over as you are too far out on Mars to converse with.

slabo

I think you forgot to take your medication again - - -

Some of Jefferson's thoughts

Was Jefferson like today's modern liberals? Not according to some of his quotes:

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

To preserve our independence... We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude."

I'd have to say he was more of a fiscal conservative than anything.

Good reading

Hi, folks - Walter Williams has been long one of my favorite teachers - Also, I have derived great pleasure reading all comments - Am trying to figure a way to get you all into the same room at one time - What a paarty !!

Patriot Act

"The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
This Jefferson fellow sounds like a raving lunatic and a danger to polite society. I certaintly hope someone from Homeland Security is taping his telephone!

Big Government

Democracies fail when the majority realizes that they are capable of taking anything they please from the minority.

On Government

The most cogent and insightful statement on government I ever read came from a Confederate soldier: “All governments are humbugs, and the Confederate government is not an exception,” that soldier wrote in a letter to the government in Richmond (quoted in “Magazine of Discord,” Terrible Swift Sword -- The Centennial History of the Civil War by Bruce Catton).

and then some

we can also thank our government for giving away our hard earned tax dollars to a laundy list of countries for the last 60yrs most of which hate the usa ,mean while we must cut things here and social security,and medicare are in big trouble,etc. its time to take care of america and cure our ills first and if possible then help who we can if there deserving of our help.

Liberty and Charity

One of my favorite quotes:
"The virtue of compassion and charity cannot be sired by the vice of thievery."

From "Liberty - A Path to It's Recovery" by F.A. Harper

Self ownership or collectivism?

"that you and cons believe "PROPERTY" over PEOPLE is the highest IDEAL !!"

Liberty is the highest ideal, not socialism.
People are individuals that own themselves and the product of their labor.

"Liberals see people in our democracy as "CITIZENS"----BIG DIFFERENCE in worldview!"
YES - that is correct - not as individuals. That corresponds to most collectivist/socialist visions.